In North Carolina, the state legislature on July 18 sent to the governor
legislation to extend the current pilot program for IRV in localities in
the wake of highly successful IRV elections in 2007 and an endorsement
from the League of Women Voters of NC. In Memphis (TN), a charter
commission has placed IRV on the November ballot, one among several
upcoming IRV measures around the nation. In Long Beach (CA), the Long Beach Press Telegram endorsed the city election director's proposal for IRV. This
fall's five leading candidates for president all have been active
supporters of IRV, while the student-run Roosevelt Institution's new25 Ideas for Electoral Reform features two proposals for instant
runoff voting.

One of the more controversial proposals on the November ballot will
unquestionably be the one proposing to add instant runoff voting as a
component of the Memphis city charter. On the surface, IRV would seem
to add a layer or two of complexity to the long-established means
whereby

we elect this or that public official. In reality, it could simplify
that established process and — no small advantage in times of financial
stress — it could save taxpayers considerable time and expense.

It works this way: Instead of casting one vote for a single choice,
Memphians going to the polls in, say, a multi-candidate City Council
race, would be asked to rank the candidates in order of preference. If
a candidate should receive a majority of first-place votes, that
candidate, by definition, is the winner. Same as we're used to. On the
other hand, if no candidate should receive a majority, instant runoff
standing would go on to assign an appropriate weight to the number of
votes for candidates in second, and third place, on down the line.
These add-on numbers would decide the issue, in lieu of one of those
high-expense, low-turnout special runoff elections we're now in the
habit of having, at disproportionate expense to the electorate.

In other words, if Candidate A and Candidate B were virtually tied
in first-place votes, but neither commanded a majority, there would be
a sensible alternative to having to run the race between the two
leading vote-getters all over again, weeks later, at a time when, human
nature being what it is, voter interest would have tailed off and
extraneous factors — organizational ones, perhaps, or maybe purely
random ones like a spell of bad weather — might resolve the issue
instead of the relative appeal of the two candidates. With instant
runoff voting in place, the decision could be awarded instead to the
candidate with demonstrably greater support in the mainstream
electorate on election day itself.

Objections have been raised that, had IRV been in effect during the
last city election, this or that candidate who finished third in a
multi-candidate race might actually have come out ahead if the totality
of first, second, and third place votes were weighted together for each
candidate.

To which we say: So? In the first place, such an outcome would be a
rarity; the likelihood is overwhelming that one of the two leading
candidates would come out ahead. In the second place, should such a
third-place candidate actually have more support in depth than two
other candidates with higher first-place totals, then IRV would have
brought the fact to the fore and prevented a miscarriage of the actual
popular will. In other words, it wouldn't happen very often, if at all,
and if it should — then so be it. In all probability, the best man — or
woman — would have won.

One other relevant fact: Instant runoff voting would not apply in
the races — like those for mayor or city clerk or for one of the six
Super District at-large positions — where runoffs are not now permitted
by judicial authority. Nothing would change except what everybody knows
is the hit-or-miss, budget-busting method by which runoff elections are
now conducted.